Ponting's follow-on slip gives England a confidence boost

The match may have been lost, and handsomely at that, but England will have travelled to Adelaide in better heart than might once have been anticipated. Numerous are the reasons being proffered for the unwillingness of Ricky Ponting to enforce the follow-on - no captain in Test history has declined to with a bigger lead - but, whichever one or combination hits the mark, the outcome unquestionably was to allow England to revive their spirit.

He may come to regret it too for, by the time the match had finished, England's beleaguered bowlers, especially Steve Harmison, had been allowed a little further down the road to recovery and the batting had outstripped any previous effort in the fourth innings of a Brisbane Test. On a pitch that would have been granted national park status in Colorado Ponting could have buried the series and instead he has thrust the smelling salts under England noses. Andrew Flintoff can look forward to Adelaide knowing his side can compete strongly. There is, however, work to be done before the second Test starts on Friday.

On the batting front Andrew Strauss needs to consider the wisdom of playing a pull shot that is ill-executed in that his bat comes in from low to high as if delivering a haymaker or an uppercut, so that it is impossible to keep the ball on the ground. Four times in six innings on the tour he has succumbed to it and that is not playing the percentages. If he persists in attempting it, Australia will continue to put men out and feed his compulsion.

Against that, any attempt to stifle the natural confidence of Kevin Pietersen and Paul Collingwood ought to be resisted. It was the willingness to take risks that allowed them to make the strongest possible statement against Shane Warne. Ignore some of the tosh about Collingwood's dismissal for 96: it was an ill-judged shot but he had used his feet to Warne throughout his innings, knew precisely what he was trying to do and had the nerve to go for it.

Of more urgency is the need to bring some order to the bowling. The South Australia match showed the new ball can produce wickets but thereafter the pitch goes flat and slow. It will dust but not crack as did the Gabba surface. The bowling has to be spot on to ensure that the new ball is not wasted and that batsmen are then made to work for runs.

Of paramount importance is Harmison's welfare. Somehow an England backroom staff that includes a sports psychologist and bowling coach managed to send their fiercest bowler out on the first day of the series technically out of sync and, by his own admission, scared stiff of the occasion. What is going on?

Harmison is only a fine-tune away from being on top of his game, his left arm, which should be the pointer, falling away slightly to the offside. At his best this direction finder describes an arc down the pitch and his follow-through takes him straight down. In the past a concern about encroaching on the pitch may have led him subconsciously to try to pull away a little too early. It is a fault that ought to be easily rectified and, if Kevin Shine cannot manage that, then he should not be here.

Better in fact that Harmison talks to any one of the great fast bowlers around - Michael Holding, for instance, or Dennis Lillee, who has offered his phone number - all of whom will offer the same advice.

It would be a mistake to go to the Adelaide Oval with the intention of tinkering with the essential balance of the side. James Anderson is bowling too many freebies to be seen as a banker on a flat pitch and it may be that Sajid Mahmood, with a bit more pace too, can do a better job.

The idea that two spinners should be employed is fanciful, however. Only two finger spinners - the Australian Colin Miller, who took 10 wickets against a weak West Indies six years ago, and Daniel Vettori for New Zealand two years since - have taken five wickets in an innings in Adelaide in the last decade, and Vettori's five for 152 required 55 overs. Warne has taken five wickets in an innings only twice there and Stuart MacGill, being touted as part of a wrist spin duet, never.

The choice of Ashley Giles or Monty Panesar depends to an extent on whether the latter has twigged that he needs to bowl slower on Australian pitches. On this trip, Giles, his action revised since his hip operation, has looked the better bowler in the nets and middle. Panesar bowled tidily in Adelaide but, when there was some assistance on the third day, the acid test as far as Duncan Fletcher was concerned, he failed to threaten.

Paradoxically, it is Australia who would have had the bigger selectorial conundrum. If they were to have found a place for Warne and MacGill, as mooted, and also for the all-rounder Shane Watson, they would have had to omit a seamer. Would it have been their fastest bowler, Brett Lee? Or Glenn McGrath, who has never taken five in an innings in Adelaide? Or Stuart Clark, their best bowler from the first Test? England, one suspects, would have settled for Clark sitting it out. As it transpires, Watson has not recovered from his hamstring injury. So, unless Adam Gilchrist bats at six, it is hard to see them changing their XI.